Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

E-democracy incorporates digital tools, the internet and social media to enhance democracy. There are many of these tools available to improve governmental responsiveness, transparency, and accountability, but also to support the inclusiveness, representativeness and influence of citizens’ participation. Examples are online petitions, apps for neighborhood watches, wikiplanning and social media monitoring. Web 3.0, which is more interactive and less location specific, enables governments to take a more personalized approach. It also allows for participation across administrative and geographical boundaries. In this symposium two contributions address the question of the influence of e-democracy on the democratization of governmental decision-making, information and service delivery, and of citizens’ participation.

E-democracy incorporates digital tools, the internet and social media to enhance democracy. There are many of these tools available to improve governmental responsiveness, transparency, and accountability, but also to support the inclusiveness, representativeness and influence of citizens’ participation. Examples are online petitions, apps for neighborhood watches, wikiplanning and social media monitoring. Web 3.0, which is more interactive and less location specific, enables governments to take a more personalized approach. It also allows for participation across administrative and geographical boundaries. In this symposium two contributions address the question of the influence of e-democracy on the democratization of governmental decision-making, information and service delivery, and of citizens’ participation.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

Given the scientific and social importance attached to productive interactions between science and policy practices, there is a striking lack of insight into current knowledge practices and the dilemmas they lead to. Our special issue can’t solve this deficiency but it can provide an impetus for opening up current knowledge practices, reflect on the role of science in them and instigate a more systematic exchange of methods. A warning is given for the reification of boundary work and Gabrielle Bammers’ Implementation and Integration Sciences is introduced as framework for the analyses.

A transition to a bio based economy requires social and technological innovations. Transition management theory holds that these innovations take place in niches that can bring about structural change in society, politics and the economy in a stepwise manner. However, these innovations are always subjected to systemic barriers, such as regulations and institutional structures, that need to be overcome. This was also the case in a consortium of government, industry and eco-toxicologists that collaboratively developed innovative water monitoring tools. In this contribution the authors investigate how systemic barriers can be made productive in a science-society dialogue by creating reflexivity and learning. They conducted a frame analysis of interviews and policy documents to unravel systemic barriers to innovation – in the form of discursive boundary work: the routinized demarcations of practices. Second, they experimented with a science-society dialogue to reflect on these routinized demarcations and develop alternatives to overcome these boundaries. The research demonstrates that reflective conversations occurred and that participants developed a boundary concept of ‘living water’ that enhanced their innovative collaboration and technology.

When scientific values like objectivity, validity and reliability are inadequate for designing research that enables society’s capacity for dealing with unstructured problems, which values or criteria should we use for designing adequate knowledge practices? Based on the articles in this special issue we answer this question by analysing the methods researchers have used for selecting stakeholders, knowledges, synthesis, context and outcome in new knowledge practices. Although a common language for comparison and documentation is lacking, the analysis provides recommendations for better designing interaction between scientific and other practices. The most important message however is that we need a designated platform for exchanging and evaluating experiences and discussing methods and the outcomes they yield.

In this feature authors discuss recent research findings that are of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

Within the past two years, hydraulic fracturing for shale gas became a highly contested technology in the Netherlands. Possible negative environmental impacts are at strained terms with possible economic, energy and geo-political benefits. In addition, there are many scientific uncertainties about, for example water contamination, methane emissions, the amounts of gas to extract and the risk of earth quakes. Societal conflict and scientific uncertainties make fracking for shale gas a wicked problem for decision makers. This article demonstrates that the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs has implemented several instruments for deliberation, such as a consultation round with stakeholders and a sound board for an independent research. These failed to lead to the desired support for fracking. In this contribution, I demonstrate that these instruments led to reason giving but not to structuring of the problem. They were used by governmental actors and protest groups as a political platform that was fuel for the political conflict.